IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50456

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HECTOR ENRIQUE ESTRADA MURILLO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-337-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Enrique Estrada Murillo (Estrada) was sentenced to concurrent 

57-month terms of imprisonment following his guilty plea to attempted illegal

reentry and false personation in immigration matters. He argues that his

sentence, which is at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range, is

unreasonable.

Estrada does not contend that the district court committed any procedural

error regarding his sentence. Thus, this court’s review is confined to whether

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 24, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-50456 Document: 00511767258 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2012
No. 11-50456

the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007). Citing United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.

2007), Estrada acknowledges that this court’s review is for plain error when a

defendant fails to object to the reasonableness of a sentence after the imposition

of sentence. Nevertheless, he seeks to preserve for further review his contention

that an objection is not required. This court need not determine whether plain

error review is appropriate because Estrada’s arguments fail even under the

abuse-of-discretion standard of review. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d

519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).

This court has consistently rejected Estrada’s “double counting” argument

and his argument that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 results in an excessive sentence because

it is not empirically based. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30

(5th Cir. 2009). We also have rejected the “international trespass” argument

that Estrada asserts. See United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th

Cir. 2006).

As to Estrada’s argument that the Guidelines fail to account for the

seriousness of his offense or for his personal history and characteristics, the

district court expressly considered Estrada’s arguments for a variance, including

his cultural assimilation, the age of Estrada’s prior drug-trafficking conviction,

the lack of an empirical basis for § 2L1.2, the relative harshness of prison

sentences on aliens, and Estrada’s substance dependency issues. The district

court also considered Estrada’s criminal history, which the district court

considered extensive and included violent acts upon others. The district court

concluded that a sentence within the Guidelines “was consistent with all of the

purposes of the sentencing statute.” Estrada has not shown that the district

court failed to give proper weight to his arguments or any particular 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factor. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). 

He has thus failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that is accorded

2

Case: 11-50456 Document: 00511767258 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2012
No. 11-50456

his within-guidelines sentence. See id.; United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523

F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. Because no further

briefing is required, the Government’s motion for an extension of time to file a

brief is DENIED.

3

Case: 11-50456 Document: 00511767258 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2012